Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1061385" data-attributes="member: 13098">Hello,The depth of the arguements based on grammar are fascinating.  They aren't entirely my cup of tea, but they are fascinating.  I can see the ruling going either way, based on personal preference.  However, that does not really help the GM that is debating this issue with a player.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />We don't have an "official ruling" from WotC, at least, we don't have one yet.  Why don't we, the community at EN World, rewrite the Uncanny Dodge ability to include Feint?  Even if it is "Unofficial" and might be trumped by a future WotC clarification.  From what I have seen over the past two years (lurking) is that the people that frequent EN World are intelligent and can work out clear rulings.  I'm not knocking on WotC, but they have a smaller staff of potential "designers" than the community here.  I would argue that we should evaluate it in terms of game balance instead of "designer's possible intent".  Would Uncanny Dodge become too powerful if it also prevented Feint?What about the valid point that Feinting in combat has a game mechanic aspect to counter it (Sense Motive)?What about a compromise wherein a sufficiently high level rogue trumps Uncanny Dodge's (theoretical) immunity to Feint?Is there a sufficiently strong arguement that can be made either way, from the standpoint of game balance, that the ability (and/or the bluff skill) can be reasonably clarified without an arbitrary decision on the part of the GM?Maybe there isn't a sufficiently strong arguement either way and that is why this hasn't been clarified before.</blockquote>

Verification